to commune or not to commune

I agree, closed communion to those who are members of the Universal Church (as that is what Catholic means). Those outside of the church, i.e. non believers are excluded from communion.

 

So to you having communion with our brothers and sisters in Christ is debasing the Lord's supper? Where in scripture does it say this?
Christian moral imperative? It is the Lord's supper, we participate in it because He instructed us to do so in remembrance of Him. It is a way of showing the unity of the body of Christ, and remembering what our Lord has done for us.

 

The goal, i think we would all agree, is to keep to the faith and order of the church as instituted by the Apostles, without adding to or subtracting from it. The problem with the Apostles' writings, as they have been preserved in the new testament, is that they do not go into the specifics of sacramental theology in a way that clears all these questions up in a neat and tidy fashion. Often we must look to the tradition of the ancient church to show us the way. St Justin Martyr, writing in the 2nd century, less than a hundred years from the lives and ministries of the Apostles, showed that not all believers were welcome to the Lord's Supper. One had to be baptized before he was able to be a part of the sacrament. But still more was required. He wrote, "This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us." Those allowed to receive must be baptized, must believe ALL the Church teaches, and live according to the Christian rule of life. Denominations, by their very existence, prove that members of one church do not believe ALL the teachings of another church, else different denominations would not exist. In that case, it appears that the received traditions of the ancient church would prohibit open communion as an innovation which violates the ancient rule.

 

Folks, let's clear things up a little. What we're talking about here is whether the church should practice "closed" or "open" communion. A necessary corollary question we need to answer is: By what standard do we judge what "closed" or "open" means in this context?

Historically, without exception, the church has practiced a "closed" communion. Varying standards may have evolved, but uniformily communion was closed.

Now, how was it closed? Firstly, public sinners and non-believers were always excluded. What of the rest of the pool of people? It seems to me that some modest standard of verification was applied. Historically congregations didn't see the rapid, constant flux of people in their midst that we see today, so most people knew each other--it was clear whether or not you were a believer not caught up in public sin. If you were a visitor, I think I read that people carried certificates from home churches attesting to their standing. I think these were checked.

Once the reformation happened, we still practiced closed communion, only now things got a little dicey. Each group believed itself to be the one true church (with perhaps some allowances for communion with groups that held similar doctrines). But by and large a group did not take communion with another group it considered heretical (for example Anglicans with Presbyterians).

In this sense there was more strident belief that heresy was heresy; there was courage to uphold a standard and thus exclude some groups that were outside what they considered the one true church.

Today we have crazies on two ends of the spectrum which tend to arise from either fundamentalism or relativism: closed communion for only those in the local body of believers in good standing, or open communion to anyone who walks in the door and feels like being included, regardless of their state of public belief or sin (because, after all, there is no heresy).

We must steer clear of these two errors. Closed communion is biblical and is the tradition. Now, do we believe that the Anglican Church is the one true church, outside of which there is no salvation? If we do, then communion should be closed, offered only to confirmed Anglicans in a church that can verify the spiritual heritage of a visitor. If, however, we don't think there is grave heresy in Presbyterians, Baptists, Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox, etc., then we should practice closed communion with them. To me, it all boils down to do we join with public sinners and/or heretics? We are pressed to answer "What is heresy and what are its consequences?"

 

There is only ONE Church, yes there are many denominations but that doesn't change the fact that there is only one Church, the Church of the Lamb.

Paul puts it pretty well when he says:

12Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ.13For we were all baptized byc one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 14Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.

15Now if the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 16And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20As it is, there are many parts, but one body.

21The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” 22On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

27Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.

 

If this it so, then it is utter charity to spare them from that Lord's Supper and that Divine punishment they would incur.

 

But then it isn't your job to judge who is and isn't able to take communion, that is why the scriptures say that its the individual who must examine themselves first before taking and to not take it if they are not worthy to do so.

 

This sounds poetic but it provides little substance. By what reasonable standard do you determine who is a member of the one true, visible church, and who isn't? Do you simply ask a person: "Have your prayed the sinner's prayer?" Or "Have you accepted Christ as your Lord and Savior?" Or "Have you been baptized in the name of the triune God?" Or "Do you believe all the teachings of the Anglican Church?"

What is the standard?

 

In the Anglican Churches I've visited both before and after becoming a confirmed member of the Church they practised open communion. Open to all professing Christians that is, mind it was up to the person to be honest about that and not take it if they are not in fact believers. In fact a very close friend of mine was very upset when I didn't ask him to be one of my sons godparents because he wasn't a Christian.

 

The standard is in the scriptures, how are they identified as members of the church according to the scriptures?

 

This is helpful! I think we need to keep our terms crystal clear. "Closed" and "open" are relative terms, aren't they? Some might call what you described above "closed."

In the situation we're in today, with so much flux and traffic, it's hard to practice the mercy of exclusion, isn't it? Today we seem to have shifted the burden to the individual walking into the church. I wouldn't say that this shift makes communion "open." I would say it's closed if the church tells the newcomer that they have to meet a certain standard.

So let's shelve for a moment the bit about whether the burden of verification resides with the church or the visitor. I think we agree that a certain standard must be met regardless, no?

 

The scriptures say we must examine ourselves - how does it follow from that that no one is able to examine us? You said yourself that your friend wasn't Christian and so you did not allow him as a godparent. His state as a person was discovered by you, by examining of the facts.

 

Because the scriptures tell us not to judge people as that's God's job! As for my friend, I didn't judge him, I simply explained the role of a Godparent and he didn't meet the criteria which he admitted, even though he has been a Godparent to other friends children but they also have not been Christian and were doing the first of the 3 sprinkles that are part of the social culture of the UK. To him it wasn't a religious thing to be taken seriously but a social thing that people do out of tradition that doesn't mean anything.

 

Precisely. You now understand the case for closed communion. Some people do not meet the criteria.

And by your admission they will be divinely punished for partaking, anyway. It is simply your love, to save them from it.

 

You must read different versions of scriptures than we do! In both Old and New Testaments, the clergy are told in no uncertain terms, not once, but several times, that if our bretheren err we have to inform or reprove them, if this is not done, the fault very rightly will be on our shoulders. If we have cautioned, then the the the matter on their backs, not ours! You must judge for yourself.
Interestingly Archbishop Bramhall, an Irish Bishop wrote a long statement to the effect that that actions stemming from the Apostles and the early fathers, traditions, that has exist without complaint over time should be considered as infallible. There are many in our church, think of them. Close Communion is one of them. S.Paul tells us ,'Keep the Deposit!
Perhaps I should refer you to Dean Steward's comment which I use as a 'signature,'.

 

Another thing! The standard of belief in Anglicanism is set by Revelation, Scripture & Councils. The Councils explain and interpret Revelation & Scripture. We do not have our own papacy we use the tools made for us in the Jewish Church (OT.) as well as in Acts Ch.15.. We are told that the Brother of Our Lord , James , Bishop of Jerusalem was chairman of the first great council. Also we are instructed by S.James, that it was guided by the Holy Ghost.

The Pauline Ep, dealt with Close Communion as did S. John in his Gospel. The subject took up a great part of the Council of Nice! What more do we want for every man to be his own Pope! Or do we only believe in what suits us personally